RodneyRegisReally? This was the best thread we've had for ages, some actual proper debate about Quins' shortcomings!

Yes the initial stuff was good, which is why I decided to restart it.

Unfortunately deleting posts involves deleting them one at a time, and after each one having to re-open the thread and find the next one. If there has been a sufficient swapping of "opinions", this can be tedious, to say the least. Deleting a thread is quick but unfortunately some good posts get deleted too.

Starting from scratch with the article, I'm not clear whether MB is pushing the blame on others or referring to the collective 'we' - including himself.

From my own experience of watching Mike in Quins teams since they won the premiership, the decline in Quins performances has been mirrored by a similar decline in MB's own performances and his susceptibility to injury.

I am not blaming Mike for Quins form or saying that there is a direct correlation between the two but there must be at least a 1 in 15 chance that there is some link. MB is the last line of defence and some recognition of his own contribution to the 34 points conceded against La Rochelle would have made a more news-worthy read.

I noticed a couple of times he was the last despairing tackle, but not actually in the right place to stop the try. Our defence suddenly waving a man through meant he wasn't expecting someone there, so he looked ineffective. I suspect that grates a bit.

I spent years playing fullback and the message to the defensive line was simple: don't let anyone come through the middle. Usually that means the centres channel. If that happens, the 15 is totally exposed as his job is to take the last man whilst guarding for the chip behind the winger. If it happens, the ball carrier is at pace and can go either way. It's the hardest part of defending as it involves being quick, a good tackler and being a bit lucky. Brownie has been exposed to too many of these situations this season.

Agree with Cookie. Having played fullback the whole "last line of defence" usually means that if you're having to make a tackle, quite often someone else has missed one.

I also played flyhalf where the tackling necessity can be lessened if your scrumhalf and back row are efficient defenders. I think that one of the tries (that some blamed on Marcus Smith being side-stepped) was more the fault of DC as he seemed to be the covering tackler that was stepped by Lamb.

I will re-make the point that I made on the original thread in response to comments that our defence is sh*t: our defence has been, and is, very good... but it's inconsistent. I have seen games this season where we've defended our line brilliantly. Yet on Saturday we leaked a few tries through poor defence. If our defence were truly terrible we would have shipped many more points to one of the top teams in France. We have the ability to defend very well, but we lack the consistency to do it for the full 8-0 minutes.

Quinky KinAgree with Cookie. Having played fullback the whole "last line of defence" usually means that if you're having to make a tackle, quite often someone else has missed one.
I also played flyhalf where the tackling necessity can be lessened if your scrumhalf and back row are efficient defenders. I think that one of the tries (that some blamed on Marcus Smith being side-stepped) was more the fault of DC as he seemed to be the covering tackler that was stepped by Lamb.

I will re-make the point that I made on the original thread in response to comments that our defence is sh*t: our defence has been, and is, very good... but it's inconsistent. I have seen games this season where we've defended our line brilliantly. Yet on Saturday we leaked a few tries through poor defence. If our defence were truly terrible we would have shipped many more points to one of the top teams in France. We have the ability to defend very well, but we lack the consistency to do it for the full 8-0 minutes.

I agree that our defence can be very good, and therefore to brand it sh t is a bit wide of the mark. But having generally good defence prone to frequent lapses and inconsistency isn't good enough at the top level. Every team will have the occasional lapse, and obviously credit has to be given where due to excellent defence, but I think we're just too easy to score against.

The defence issue touches on the Brian Ashton article - coaches can only go so far, eventually you have to rely on the guys on the pitch. Just a few (not a lot, a handful) of switch off moments last week arguably cost us the win. I imagine poor Minty was tearing his hair watching that. Overall though, defence is noticeably better than under COS and if we keep improving we might finally see the mythical "Fortress Stoop". It'll require a bit more than we're doing at the moment though!

There's a certain tight head playing for Quins who started off as a full back, so don't be too dismissive. Brown's "complaint" is accurate. We have conceded the 8th most points in the table, 164 vs for instance 97 for Sarries (in first) and 132 for Newcastle in 4th. I believe that we have also given away a good deal more penalties and yellows too. If we actually want to compete at the top end of the table then it needs to improve. Newcastle who don't have anything like the "stars" we have (other than in the DoR department) are 4th having both conceded, and scored, 32 points less than us. Defence is not good enough!

The defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

We're getting better at not giving away brain dead penalties, but too often in the past we'd give away a needless penalty (I'm all for necessary penalties) some 30-40m out and the oppo fly half would just bang the ball over for another 3 points. Easy points, given away!

ssdudleyHey Cookie, you comment above about spending years as a full back. Other posts as a prop. Did you a) Go on on steroids, b) Go to seed, or c) Thamesians wanted to hurt you so moved you to prop! 😈

Haha! Played mostly at 10 and 15, but at the start of the season when I was 38, the captain told me he couldn't justify playing me at 15 with a young kid coming through. He suggested a move to the front row so I said I'd play loose head. On the bus to the game he announced I was playing hooker. Nearly broke my neck in that game (seriously!) and was out for 3 months. Came back and settled in at prop.

Amusingly played for my old club at 1 two weeks ago and the same ref from that came turned up for a Thamesians Vets game and saw me at 15. He was rather bemused!

Quinky KinAgree with Cookie. Having played fullback the whole "last line of defence" usually means that if you're having to make a tackle, quite often someone else has missed one.
I also played flyhalf where the tackling necessity can be lessened if your scrumhalf and back row are efficient defenders. I think that one of the tries (that some blamed on Marcus Smith being side-stepped) was more the fault of DC as he seemed to be the covering tackler that was stepped by Lamb.

I will re-make the point that I made on the original thread in response to comments that our defence is sh*t: our defence has been, and is, very good... but it's inconsistent. I have seen games this season where we've defended our line brilliantly. Yet on Saturday we leaked a few tries through poor defence. If our defence were truly terrible we would have shipped many more points to one of the top teams in France. We have the ability to defend very well, but we lack the consistency to do it for the full 8-0 minutes.

I agree that our defence can be very good, and therefore to brand it sh t is a bit wide of the mark. But having generally good defence prone to frequent lapses and inconsistency isn't good enough at the top level. Every team will have the occasional lapse, and obviously credit has to be given where due to excellent defence, but I think we're just too easy to score against.

My point exactly!

Quote:

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

It's like saying: "There's nothing wrong with this chain, apart from that one link," or "I didn't do it, m'lud, apart from when I did".

I can see the value in making the distinction that the defensive system is good but the execution of it is poor, but at the end of the day (or after 80 minutes) that still means that the defence is not good enough.

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

Not sure I agree. Using that same logic, you could argue that a kicker isn't good enough because he misses a kick. Or Robshaw isn't good enough because he missed a tackle.

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

Not sure I agree. Using that same logic, you could argue that a kicker isn't good enough because he misses a kick. Or Robshaw isn't good enough because he missed a tackle.

And so it becomes a question of averages. On average does Chris Robshaw miss more tackles than the next man? (No.) On average do we as a team make more defensive errors than the next team? (164 points conceded in the Premiership so far; only Glos, Worcs and Irish are worse.)

Granted, points conceded is an imperfect proxy for (lack of) quality in defence. It could be that we're conceding so many points by giving away too many kickable penalties, but my feeling is that it's the soft seven-pointers that are the main problem.

Fair points Mr Other. I would say the best time to assess is at the end of the season. Averages will be free of distortion by only having played strong/weak teams, fir example. Another point is that some teams seem to adopt the approach that shipping tries is less of an issue if you score plenty, as you might see with some Super Rugby teams.

Agreed that the 3-pointers harm us. We give away too many penalties, especially considering the standard of kickers these days.

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

Not sure I agree. Using that same logic, you could argue that a kicker isn't good enough because he misses a kick. Or Robshaw isn't good enough because he missed a tackle.

And so it becomes a question of averages. On average does Chris Robshaw miss more tackles than the next man? (No.) On average do we as a team make more defensive errors than the next team? (164 points conceded in the Premiership so far; only Glos, Worcs and Irish are worse.)

Granted, points conceded is an imperfect proxy for (lack of) quality in defence. It could be that we're conceding so many points by giving away too many kickable penalties, but my feeling is that it's the soft seven-pointers that are the main problem.

We are 7th in tries conceded (19, best is 12). That we are in a lower position on the points against table implies that it's slightly more a penalty issue, but both aspects are poor.

You're correct Adi. As with all these things, greater scrutiny can reveal a lot. Many games I've watched where the number of penalties seems to bear no relation to what's happened (too many, or too few). Over the course of a season you'd hope this would iron out. The other issue is where the penalties are conceded - I suspect we concede far too many in the red zone. That's fine f your high penalty count means conceding fewer tries (a la All Blacks), but it doesn't seem to be the case with Quins.

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

Not sure I agree. Using that same logic, you could argue that a kicker isn't good enough because he misses a kick. Or Robshaw isn't good enough because he missed a tackle.

And so it becomes a question of averages. On average does Chris Robshaw miss more tackles than the next man? (No.) On average do we as a team make more defensive errors than the next team? (164 points conceded in the Premiership so far; only Glos, Worcs and Irish are worse.)

Granted, points conceded is an imperfect proxy for (lack of) quality in defence. It could be that we're conceding so many points by giving away too many kickable penalties, but my feeling is that it's the soft seven-pointers that are the main problem.

We are 7th in tries conceded (19, best is 12). That we are in a lower position on the points against table implies that it's slightly more a penalty issue, but both aspects are poor.

Interesting, thx. Suggests that my feeling about the seven-pointers was wrong and that it's more about indiscipline and/or poor understanding of what a given ref is gong to ping you for (unless, of course, the refs really are in conspiracy against us!).

DOKThe defence is good enough. It's individual players going to sleep that isn't. That's the really irritating part - in 80 minutes they can do 77 minutes of defence but those 3 minutes switched off kill us.

This doesn't make sense to me. You might as well say that the defence is good enough, except when it isn't.

Not sure I agree. Using that same logic, you could argue that a kicker isn't good enough because he misses a kick. Or Robshaw isn't good enough because he missed a tackle.

And so it becomes a question of averages. On average does Chris Robshaw miss more tackles than the next man? (No.) On average do we as a team make more defensive errors than the next team? (164 points conceded in the Premiership so far; only Glos, Worcs and Irish are worse.)

Granted, points conceded is an imperfect proxy for (lack of) quality in defence. It could be that we're conceding so many points by giving away too many kickable penalties, but my feeling is that it's the soft seven-pointers that are the main problem.

We are 7th in tries conceded (19, best is 12). That we are in a lower position on the points against table implies that it's slightly more a penalty issue, but both aspects are poor.

Interesting, thx. Suggests that my feeling about the seven-pointers was wrong and that it's more about indiscipline and/or poor understanding of what a given ref is gong to ping you for (unless, of course, the refs really are in conspiracy against us!).

I've always said it's a combination of poor discipline and poor defence, hence why I concentrate on points and results. These stats prove it.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net